logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1968. 6. 18. 선고 67다275 판결
[손해배상][집16(2)민,128]
Main Issues

Cases where there was an error in the deliberation and determination of the matters not asserted by the plaintiff;

Summary of Judgment

Where it is unclear whether the plaintiff's claim was made under an agreement on the party's account or is held liable for the employer due to an employee's illegal act in the course of performing his/her duties, it is a case where there is an error in the deliberation and determination of the alleged matters.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 188 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff-Appellee

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellant

The Bank of Korea, Inc.

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na878 delivered on January 10, 1967, Seoul High Court Decision 66Na878 delivered on January 10, 1967

Text

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

Reasons

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the original judgment, the court below recognized the fact that small amount of KRW 3,00 per face value checks were altered at face value 120,000 by the bearers of the Plaintiff’s own name and omitted, and that the Bank employees of the Defendant bank paid KRW 120,00 from the Plaintiff’s current account without finding out that they were altered checks, due to the gross negligence of the Plaintiff’s bank members, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 120,000 to the Plaintiff. However, the court below held that the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages since it was caused by the Defendant’s employee’s negligence in the performance of duties, and therefore, it cannot be viewed that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was clearly based on what reasons the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was made. Nevertheless, the court below did not err by misapprehending the original judgment as to what portion of the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant’s tort in the execution of duties, and thus, it did not err by misapprehending the Plaintiff’s right of compensation for the tort.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The presiding judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Marins (Presiding Justice)

arrow